Because docked ships have to be functional. Oh, and people can't live aboard.

Right now, moored at Pier 50 in San Francisco, there’s a converted Icelandic icebreaking cargo ferry that's been a startup incubator over the last two years. (It was first tricked out to be used as a residence.)

One problem, though: the Port of San Francisco has threatened to shut the ship down by the end of October 2013. For now, thanks to new community support, the eviction process has been “paused.”

"The tenant (Maritol Enterprise LLC) is on a holdover basis, and either party may terminate with 30 days' notice," Renée Martin, a Port of San Francisco spokesperson, told Ars.

"The October 31, 2013 date to vacate the vessel is off. The Port’s Real Estate property manager (who is currently on vacation) will be meeting with Mr. Creon Levit soon to discuss what his company must do to avoid a new 30-day notice."

Why is the ship only now being kicked out? According to the San Francisco Chronicle, local port rules dictate that people cannot live aboard any ship—startup incubator or otherwise—and that a boat berthed at a pier must be fully operational.

"I'm sure they have a cool operation there—it looks cool—but there are rules," Martin told the Chronicle on Thursday. "Especially when you're dealing with the bay."

“A co-working space in San Rafael is just not the same”

The folks behind the ship, officially known as the MV Maritol but dubbed the “Icebreaker,” have spearheaded a petition. They argue that the ship’s unique business tech vibe is special and should be allowed to stay.

The petition pleads:

The Icebreaker is a community space unlike any other in San Francisco—an Icelandic cargo ship reimagined by a local architect. We've built a unique workspace where startups contributing hundreds of millions of dollars to the city's economy have been started or accelerated, including my company WhatWeOrder.com. My co-founder and I found investors, advisors, and some of our first customers through the Icebreaker community. As you can see in the video above, my startup is definitely not alone. Places like the Icebreaker are a symbol of—and the reason why—San Francisco is a global leader in innovation.

Of course, the Icebreaker could just move to any number of the other towns that ring the San Francisco Bay.

"But a co-working space in San Rafael is just not the same," Paul Baumgart, one of the ship’s corporate residents who led the petition drive, told the Chronicle. He elaborated to Ars via Twitter that the Icebreaker hasn't received any other offers from other harbors.

Even if the Icebreaker does get shut down, maritime-minded entrepreneurs need not worry. There are plans to anchor a huge ship off the coast of nearby Silicon Valley in 2015 as a way to skirt American immigration laws.

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

98 Reader Comments

This isn't under the municipality's control, I think. The ship is docked in port. It has to follow the port authority's rules. There might be a need to move the ship along the dock, or move it out completely, hence the need for it to be fully operational. As for people living aboard, maybe that rule could go. But not the one regarding full functionality. Even if it's a cool start-up incubator.

This isn't under the municipality's control, I think. The ship is docked in port. It has to follow the port authority's rules. There might be a need to move the ship along the dock, or move it out completely, hence the need for it to be fully operational. As for people living aboard, maybe that rule could go. But not the one regarding full functionality. Even if it's a cool start-up incubator.

I'm sure there are myriad considerations regarding people living on board (especially if it's a large number) - fire regulations, utilities, etc. They probably should have paid a lawyer to look into what the relevant laws/regulations are and how to meet them (I don't know if they did or didn't do this).

Seasteading has never really been a viable idea. They want the freedom from laws, but want the convenience that the country affords. If someone were able to make a self-sufficient sea community, they'd end up with all the problems they were trying to avoid.

Can someone explain the reason behind this in the first place? I'm not clear on what benefits there are to startups to operate out of a docked boat vs. renting a small office space elsewhere. Is it cheaper? One of those "You're on a boat so you don't have to deal with the city's regulations" things? (i.e. where I live, there was a casino that operated on an old-style paddle-wheeler boat. Aside from the coolness factor of a casino-on-a-boat, they weren't even legally allowed to run a casino on land in the city but the boat was perfectly legal)

I personally found the not-really-immigrant ship (http://blueseed.co/faq/#visa) a lot more disturbing than a bunch of spoiled children wanting to play sailor.

It sounds like an excellent way for vultures to cheaply exploit foreigners, depress domestic wages for skilled workers, and make a mockery of labor laws across the board.

I was about to post the same. Don't forget the opportunity to work in an environment where "law" is enforced by a private security force with no judicial guarantees, and your ability to leave is controlled by the same people.

This isn't under the municipality's control, I think. The ship is docked in port. It has to follow the port authority's rules. There might be a need to move the ship along the dock, or move it out completely, hence the need for it to be fully operational. As for people living aboard, maybe that rule could go. But not the one regarding full functionality. Even if it's a cool start-up incubator.

I'm sure there are myriad considerations regarding people living on board (especially if it's a large number) - fire regulations, utilities, etc. They probably should have paid a lawyer to look into what the relevant laws/regulations are and how to meet them (I don't know if they did or didn't do this).

There are some regulations and taxes that they can certainly skirt this way. I'm guessing the working space isn't up to code, and of course there's no property taxes. From the story though, it sounds like these people just had the boat, decided to convert it into shared office space, and didn't stop to consider that maybe what they were doing isn't legal. And now that they've been caught, yeah, their response is "but we're cool, so we should totally be able to ignore the rules!"

Yeah, sorry special snowflakes, but that makes it even less compelling to me. I'd be sympathetic (but not necessarily convinced) by a ship holding a bunch of homeless people with no other safe place to go. That would be a lot more compelling reason to issue a waiver, compared to a few rich people with plenty of other options available to them, including just towing the fucking ship a few miles away, but who don't want to because... have you seen the bamboo flooring they installed?

Live aboards take up room which could be used for habitat or recreation, and instead use it for residential uses. Residential and office uses have lots of area to use (like, on the land) - but the area of water is limited, and this uses up the limited room available for habitat and recreation. Yeah, it sucks that these guys have to pay rent in a real office, but that's how it is. Just because they're a tech company doesn't put them above the rules that apply to other businesses or residents, which also don't want to have to pay rent. Besides, live aboards have greater environmental impacts, such as the chemicals that have to be used on the hulls, the chance of sewage spills, oil leaks, and the chance of the whole thing sinking and causing a bunch of damage when these guys no longer have a use for it

Full disclosure: I lived on the "Icebreaker" and another ship at Pier 28, "Aurora", for a couple of weeks in Sep 2011, know the owner, and have partied there several times since. It was a great way to live in SF while I found an apartment for my wife and I and moved us down here. Fantastic people!

I used to think that Larry Ellison was to blame for all of this. He wanted to develop the piers and the people who have been docked there aboard ships all had to find new ports. This had been ongoing since my time aboard both ships at Pier 28, and they were threatening us then with having to move (that was two years ago). The tale then was that it was for America's Cup.

I can say that the owners and those aboard the ships are great people, whiny as they may seem (they are).

SF is a working port - with myriad ships of all sizes constantly moving in and out and maneuvering around. San Rafael - or one of the other cities are not working ports, but have mostly smaller boats that don't move nearly as much. There are many people living on houseboats in the area and it is not considered anything special. Sausalito has had a floating houseboat community for many years and is even closer to SF than San Rafael.

It is probably considered more dangerous for a ship used as an apartment building/office, especially one that cannot move to get out of the way or able to maneuver on its own if it breaks free, to be permanently moored on the SF waterfront - it is far more likely to be hit or hit by a large ship accidentally. While having that 'prestigious' SF location makes these guys feel oh so special, they still need to follow the same rules as everyone else using the port facility. Move it.

"There are plans to anchor a huge ship off the coast of nearby Silicon Valley in 2015 as a way to skirt American immigration laws."

This is factually untrue. Even the linked article in no way states that immigration laws are skirted. Instead there are plenty of visa and legal entry requirements including passports. It would be like working in Blaine Washington. You need to pass Canadian customs each day, you are not "skirting" customs.

Full disclosure: I lived on the "Icebreaker" and another ship at Pier 28, "Aurora", for a couple of weeks in Sep 2011, know the owner, and have partied there several times since. It was a great way to live in SF while I found an apartment for my wife and I and moved us down here. Fantastic people!

I used to think that Larry Ellison was to blame for all of this. He wanted to develop the piers and the people who have been docked there aboard ships all had to find new ports. This had been ongoing since my time aboard both ships at Pier 28, and they were threatening us then with having to move (that was two years ago). The tale then was that it was for America's Cup.

I can say that the owners and those aboard the ships are great people, whiny as they may seem (they are).

Would you mind elaborating on why exactly they're on a boat? (not flaming, I'm honestly confused by the point, and I read some of the linked articles as well) :-)

Is this simply a "it's cool to live and work on a boat" thing, or are they doing some tricky/clever legal thing by working there?

Of course, the Icebreaker could just move to any number of the other towns that ring the San Francisco Bay. Nearby San Rafael, just north of San Francisco, has apparently said it would gladly accept the ship.

Wait a minute Cyrus!

In your HEADLINE - you state acording to SF Rules a ship has to be functional ? IS this ships functional ? Or in order for it to "just move" - will it have to be towed ?

Bad reporting - clarify your facts.

Is that functional as in the motor runs and you can cruise around in it without it sinking, or functional as in "used commercially as a sea faring vessel"?

Full disclosure: I lived on the "Icebreaker" and another ship at Pier 28, "Aurora", for a couple of weeks in Sep 2011, know the owner, and have partied there several times since. It was a great way to live in SF while I found an apartment for my wife and I and moved us down here. Fantastic people!

I used to think that Larry Ellison was to blame for all of this. He wanted to develop the piers and the people who have been docked there aboard ships all had to find new ports. This had been ongoing since my time aboard both ships at Pier 28, and they were threatening us then with having to move (that was two years ago). The tale then was that it was for America's Cup.

I can say that the owners and those aboard the ships are great people, whiny as they may seem (they are).

Would you mind elaborating on why exactly they're on a boat? (not flaming, I'm honestly confused by the point, and I read some of the linked articles as well) :-)

Is this simply a "it's cool to live and work on a boat" thing, or are they doing some tricky/clever legal thing by working there?

I can't speak for everyone, but I can definitely tell you that living there on both boats was certainly cool and I skirted having to pay SF rent for two weeks.

This isn't under the municipality's control, I think. The ship is docked in port. It has to follow the port authority's rules. There might be a need to move the ship along the dock, or move it out completely, hence the need for it to be fully operational. As for people living aboard, maybe that rule could go. But not the one regarding full functionality. Even if it's a cool start-up incubator.

You're right about it being out of the city's hands but -

The ships needing to be operational to be moved is not true - we can (and do) use tugs for that if necessary. In fact ships that intend to be in port for a long period will shut down their propulsion plant and even power generation, relying on shore power. If they need to make a short move, often the ships will just fire tugs to move them and will not even bother to activate their propulsion plant.

*And*, all those large ships in port - people *live* on them, maybe not as a primary residence but all those ships in from other ports don't force their whole crews to find a hotel when they dock.

Personally, I think this is more about some people living and working in a place some other people (with power) don't want them to and someone carefully read the rule-books until they could find a law to harass them with.

Tell that to the USS Hornet Museum, docked at Alameda Point. I'm pretty sure that ship is in no way able to get underway on its own.

I'm sure the US Navy has the resources to move the ship if there was a need. And it probably has a legitimate waiver anyway. The Icebreaker, on the other hand, appears to be ignoring port safety because it's inconvenient.